Comment by zelon88 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by zelon88 | Hacker News Reader

I don't like this piece. It's so vague there's really no story here.

"Employee A had a disagreement with Employee B who filed a complaint with HR. HR investigated and took no action."

Oh the persecution!

> The mere involvement of local ‘authorities,’ whether school administrators or HR or whoever else, in adjudicating mainstream political disagreement can of course have a chilling effect on people’s expression of their political beliefs.

That's their job. They go out and verify the claims and take action where neccesary. Since no action was taken one can assume no action was neccesary. That doesn't mean we revoke Employee A's right to complain to HR next time they have a problem.

And it's important to note that if 90% of your workplace has a problem with your personal opinion, maybe your expression of political beliefs needs to be chilled. That doesn't mean don't believe what you feel and don't vote how you believe. That just means that if you have a pointed stance on race that flies in the face of civil discourse society is going to step in and make sure you hear the echo's of society. It's the same feedback loop that ensures KKK members know, without a doubt, that they're doing something wrong. That's a good thing. It doesn't mean they can't drink the Kool-Aid, but it means they should probably think twice before selling it at the supermarket.

All true. There still should be repercussions for weaponizing HR to make someone's life miserable when your only evidence is "accusing his column ... of making them ‘unsafe’" or feeling “shaken up” after a conversation with a colleague. The right response from HR, in absentia of any further evidence from the complainant, is either to recommend to the supervisor to deal with it tactfully or refer the complainant to the mental health resources he needs.

I imagine this would fall under some kind of anti-harassment law/policy

Except no evidence has been presented that such a thing has ever happened. Even with Damore.

We have:

- the actual memo published by Damore, with full citations

- his description of the sequence of events that lead to his termination, which has not (to my knowledge) been publicly contradicted.

- Sundar Pichai's own statement regarding the termination, which reflects a false characterization of Damore's memo.

- leaked internal discussions from Google, which show rather abusive behavior towards Damore and others on political grounds.

What other evidence would you like?

I read Damore's complaint (and just checked it again to see if I had missed something last year) and he never alleges that any colleagues complained to HR; in fact the only complaints mentioned in the filing were by him and his fellow plaintiff, which he complains were ignored.

It's not surprising that, once he filed suit, no public comment has been made as to his claims. But the NLRB turned him down and, FWIW, its chair was appointed by the current president.

Are you arguing that people aren't weaponizing victimhood to cause others to lose their job, or just that it isn't complaints to HR specifically that are causing people to lose their jobs?

“Complained to HR” is a surprisingly common claim because of its handy opacity. Which could even be pierced in a legal process so I believe it was not an issue in Damore’s case, regardless of claims to that effect I’ve heard made by plenty of people not involved. Objections to damore’s essay were, AFAICT, overt and direct which is the essence of argument.

As for the broader claim IMHO the “victimhood” narrative is currently a tool of the right (whether it’s the unfair press, or “Christianity under attack” and the like. But I know some people draw the opposite conclusion from the same data so I was trying not to address that.

OK, if we are going to focus on "Complaints to HR" (or perhaps something similar) would you consider the case of Lindsay Shepherd[1] to be a concrete example?

In her case, she was reprimanded for sharing a topically relevant clip of a mainstream news show. There is a question as to whether a complaint was actually made, but the claim was made that a complaint had been filed when she was reprimanded.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Shepherd

There still should be repercussions for weaponizing HR to make someone's life miserable when your only evidence is "accusing his column ... of making them ‘unsafe’" or feeling “shaken up” after a conversation with a colleague.

Somewhere on an emotional level, I feel like there should be. However, if that's the extent of it, and HR decides nothing is needed, then there isn't anything really there. However, if there's civil conspiracy and defamation involved, the repercussions can take the form of lawsuits. My read on Vic Migogna and the #KickVic debacle (which includes already falsified faked accusations on social media) is that it's a weaponized use of HR to get rid of a rival whose politics others disapproved of.

> However, if that's the extent of it, and HR decides nothing is needed, then there isn't anything really there.

True, but then again, it will probably go into the permanent file and if more complaints come in later, it adds up. Similarly to how you're supposed to report even small things to the police if you expect more to come. Even if they can't do anything now, it starts a paper trail and will be taken into account if anything else happens.

Perhaps, but anecdata like this is telling of an underlying political sickness that is affecting people (if they're true)

Especially given the update:

> Update, 12:35 pm: An editor from this publication has contested Ted’s account in ways I find credible. I’m reaching out to a couple people and will have a full update and potential correction as soon as possible.

The headline seems to be a gross generalization of two reports that the writer didn't seem to investigate.

I'll wait for actual journalists to report on any newsroom biases or cultural changes, which is where I'd expect accurate reports to come from.

(Real journalists are sharp and wise observers, they of course have special vantages for newsroom internal goings-on, and their professional experience is in investigating and communicating truth. Even though they might not be able to report on their own outlet, they talk with real journalists elsewhere.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com